COVID-19 Scientific Literacy in Medical and Nursing Students.

The pandemic brought a whole newfound collection of words into our everyday language, some of which had been terms that were infrequently used outside academic and medical settings. However, as familiar as this new pandemic vocabulary has become, there are still several terms that often get mixed in everyday conversations, media communications, and even in the medical field. Some of these terms are often mistaken, which may lead to issues in the understanding of important concepts. Science communication, as a facet of scientific literacy, intends to educate people in an easy-to-understand manner, and this communication is even more important in health care, when a literate patient's medical decisions depend frequently on this process. In this article, we explore the use and misuse of some of the most common terms utilized during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic by nursing and medical students, i.e., future health care professionals, in the hospital environment. This single-center hospital-based cross-sectional study, performed throughout September 2022, included 30 medical and nursing students. All participants completed a self-administered 15-item anonymous questionnaire at a single time point. Nine multiple-choice questions evaluated knowledge, diagnosis, disease manifestations, and vaccines related to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Six questions provided demographics and quality assessment information. The analysis of the answers indicated that for at least 75% of the population surveyed, COVID-19 literacy was better for terms related to technology and actions (3/5 questions answered correctly) than for terms related to the disease (1/4 questions answered correctly). The overall median score for questions 1 to 9 was 4.5 of 9 points in total. Based on the results, the language used in the questionnaire was considered easy to understand, with an easy to medium level of complexity, and the perceived time required to complete the questionnaire was less than 5 min. In conclusion, our results showed that efforts need to be made in continuous professional education to increase the knowledge in COVID-19 literacy in the health care environment for medical and nursing students. Larger studies are recommended to identify and to fulfill the challenges that COVID-19 brought to medical and nursing education.

Efficacy of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in functional constipation.

Most children with functional constipation (FC) improve with conventional treatments. However, a proportion of children have poor treatment outcomes. Management of intractable FC may include botulinum toxin injections, transanal irrigation, antegrade enemas, colonic resections, and in some cases sacral nerve stimulation (SNS). SNS is surgically placed, not readily available and expensive. Posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) allows transmission of electronic impulses and retrograde stimulation to the sacral nerve plexus in a portable, simple and non-invasive fashion. To assess the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous PTNS for the treatment of FC in children. Single-center, prospective interventional study. Children 4-14 years with Rome IV diagnosis of FC received ten daily PTNS (30 min/day) sessions. Electrodes placed over skin of ankle. Strength of stimulus was below pain threshold. Outcomes were assessed during treatment and 7 days after. Twenty-three subjects enrolled. Two children excluded (acute gastroenteritis, COVID-19 contact). Twenty completed the study (4-14 years), (8.4 ± 3.2 years, 71.4% female). We found significant improvement in the consistency of bowel movements (BM) (p = 0.005), fecal incontinence (FI) (p = 0.005), abdominal pain presence (p = < 0.001) and intensity (p = 0.005), and a significant for improvement in blood in stools (p = 0.037). There was 86.3% improvement in abdominal pain. 96.7% reported treatment satisfaction. Only one child required rescue therapy. CONCLUSION: We found significant improvement in stool consistency, FI, abdominal pain, and hematochezia. This suggests that transcutaneous PTNS could be a promising noninvasive treatment for FC in children. Large studies are needed. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Functional constipation is one of the most common disorders in children. • Current management of functional constipation consists of an integrative approach that includes medications, diet and behavioral strategies. WHAT IS NEW: • Posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a novel noninvasive and easy to use therapy that can improve stool consistency, fecal incontinence and blood in stools.

Risk Factors for Abdominal Pain-Related Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction in Adults and Children: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Many studies have assessed risk factors of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and other abdominal pain-related disorders of gut-brain interaction (AP-DGBI); however, the role of these factors is unclear due to heterogeneous study designs. The aim of this systematic review was to extensively evaluate the literature and determine clinical risk and protective factors for the presence and persistence of AP-DGBI in children and adults. METHODS: A PubMed search identified studies investigating potential risk and protective factors for AP-DGBI in adults and children. Inclusion criteria included fully published studies with a control group; exclusion criteria included poor-quality studies (using a validated scale). For each factor, the proportion of studies that found the factor to be a risk factor, protective factor, or neither was summarized. The number of studies, diagnostic criteria, number of subjects, and average study quality rating provided further context. Whenever possible, a meta-analysis generated pooled odds ratios or mean difference. RESULTS: The systematic review included 348 studies. Female sex, gastroenteritis, abuse, stress, psychological disorders, somatic symptoms, and poor sleep were consistent risk factors for developing AP-DGBI in adults and children. In adults, additional risk factors included obesity, smoking, and increased use of medical resources. Protective AP-DGBI factors in adults included social support and optimism; no studies for protective factors were found for children. CONCLUSIONS: There are multiple risk factors for AP-DGBI in adults and children. These include female sex, gastroenteritis, abuse, stress, poor sleep, obesity, psychological disorders, and somatic symptoms. Additional studies are needed in children, on protective factors, and on factors associated with persistence of AP-DGBI.

Probiotics for treatment of chronic constipation in children.

BACKGROUND: Functional constipation is defined as chronic constipation with no identifiable underlying cause. It is a significant cause of morbidity in children, accounting for up to 25% of visits to paediatric gastroenterologists. Probiotic preparations may sufficiently alter the gut microbiome and promote normal gut physiology in a way that helps relieve functional constipation. Several studies have sought to address this hypothesis, as well as the role of probiotics in other functional gut disorders. Therefore, it is important to have a focused review to assess the evidence to date. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the management of chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children. SEARCH METHODS: On 28 June 2021, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, WHO ICTR, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with no language, date, publication status, or document type limitations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) compared to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in people aged between 0 and 18 years old with a diagnosis of functional constipation according to consensus criteria (such as Rome IV). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (1127 randomised participants): 12 studies assessed probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation, whilst two studies investigated synbiotic preparations. Three studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to the frequency of defecation at study end, but we did not pool them as there was very significant unexplained heterogeneity. Four studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to treatment success. There may be no difference in global improvement/treatment success (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.26; 313 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, with the pooled effect suggesting there may be no difference (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.95; 357 participants; low-certainty evidence). The pooled estimate from three studies that compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone found there may be no difference in frequency of defecation (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.56; 268 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to global improvement/treatment success, and found there may be no difference between the treatments (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies compared probiotics plus osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, but it is unclear if there is a difference between them (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.35; 268 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics versus magnesium oxide. It is unclear if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 1.14; 36 participants), treatment success (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57; 36 participants) or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.04; 77 participants). The certainty of the evidence is very low for these outcomes. One study assessed the role of a synbiotic preparation in comparison to placebo. There may be higher treatment success in favour of synbiotics compared to placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.47; 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study assessed a synbiotic plus paraffin compared to paraffin alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.74, 95% CI -0.96, 2.44; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or treatment success (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study compared a synbiotic preparation to paraffin. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD -1.53, 95% CI -3.00, -0.06; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or in treatment success (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65, 1.13; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. All secondary outcomes were either not reported or reported in a way that did not allow for analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether probiotics are efficacious in successfully treating chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children or changing the frequency of defecation, or whether there is a difference in withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There is limited evidence from one study to suggest a synbiotic preparation may be more likely than placebo to lead to treatment success, with no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to draw efficacy or safety conclusions about the use of probiotics in combination with or in comparison to any of the other interventions reported. The majority of the studies that presented data on serious adverse events reported that no events occurred. Two studies did not report this outcome. Future studies are needed to confirm efficacy, but the research community requires guidance on the best context for probiotics in such studies, considering where they should be best considered in a potential treatment hierarchy and should align with core outcome sets to support future interpretation of findings.